logo
US attacked the three main nuclear sites in Iran, Trump says

US attacked the three main nuclear sites in Iran, Trump says

Miami Herald6 days ago

President Donald Trump said American jets struck Iran's three main nuclear sites, pulling the U.S. directly into the country's conflict despite his longtime promises to avoid new wars.
Trump said Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan were struck in the operation, specifically describing a "payload of BOMBS" dropped on Fordow, a key location of uranium enrichment that has raised international concern that Iran was preparing to create a nuclear weapon.
The president called the operation "very successful," adding that the aircraft involved had exited Iranian air space, and are "safely on their way home."
"NOW IS THE TIME FOR PEACE!" he wrote on Truth Social.
Trump also said he would address the nation about the military operation at 10 p.m. at the White House.
"Part of the area surrounding the Fordow nuclear site came under aerial attack by enemy forces" early Sunday after air defenses in the city of Qom were activated, Iran's Tasnim news agency reported, citing a spokesman for the city's crisis management headquarters. The Fordow nuclear facility sits around 30 kilometers (18 miles) south of Qom, and 100 kilometers (62 miles) south of the capital, Tehran.
Trump's decision to launch the strikes was a surprise given that he had said late last week he would make a decision within two weeks, suggesting he was willing to give more time for negotiations. On Friday, the foreign ministers of France, Germany and the U.K. had met with Iranian officials in a bid to prevent a U.S. attack.
It could immediately open the U.S. to attack since Iran had warned it would retaliate if Trump ordered strikes. Trump's combative language in the last couple of days had also triggered new threats from the Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen and led Iranian officials to call the U.S. Israel's "partner in crime."
"I hope that the Iranians are measured in their response but there will be a response - this is an act of war by the United States against a foreign country, which has not attacked us lately," said Barbara Slavin, a distinguished fellow at the Stimson Center. "Americans are at risk all over the Middle East, all over the world."
Earlier Saturday, the State Department said the U.S. had begun evacuating U.S. citizens from Israel. The agency organized two flights to Athens from Tel Aviv with about 70 U.S. citizens, family member and permanent residents, it said.
The continued fighting has evoked fears of a regional conflict that results in massive civilian casualties, and disrupts the flow of energy and other trade through the region. Around a fifth of the world's daily oil supply goes through the Strait of Hormuz, which lies between Iran and its gulf Arab neighbors.
For days, Trump had faced conflicting advice from his supporters, after he campaigned for president on promises to keep the U.S. out of foreign wars, pointing to American involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq. MAGA allies including longtime Trump supporter Steve Bannon, have warned against any U.S. intervention, insisting this is Israel's fight to finish.
Yet other Republicans had been urging Trump to join the fight against Iran, arguing that Tehran was more vulnerable after days of air strikes by Israel, and there was a strong opportunity to deliver on the president's long insistence the regime cannot be allowed to have a nuclear weapon.
Trump and his advisers had suggested in recent days that any strike would be limited.
"This is not the start of a forever war," Sen. Jim Risch, the Idaho Republican and chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said on X. "There will not be American boots on the ground in Iran. This was a precise, limited strike, which was necessary and by all accounts was very successful."
Energy experts have raised concerns that crude flows in the region could be imperiled if Iran and its proxies retaliate in response to a U.S. attack. Fears have focused on the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow waterway at the mouth of the Persian Gulf that is a key transit point for 26% of the world's oil trade. Houthis have previously disrupted Red Sea shipping, with attacks on ships in the Bab el Mandeb strait forcing vessels to reroute around Africa.
A broader attack - including potentially planting naval mines - on the Strait of Hormuz could have even wider consequences, since it's such a vital artery for the region's oil and gas output.
U.S. ally Israel had launched a surprise attack on Iran on June 13, saying the imminent threat of the regime in Tehran securing nuclear weapons had to be neutralized. Iran's military infrastructure was seriously damaged and a number of its top generals and atomic scientists were killed. But Israel lacked the heavy bombs and B-2 stealth jets believed to be required to destroy nuclear sites buried deep underground.
Tehran had responded to Israel's strikes by firing waves of ballistic missiles and drones, breaching aerial defenses, striking several cities and causing unprecedented damage. But the number of projectiles launched by Iran dropped markedly after the first few days of the conflict, raising questions about the number of missiles left in its arsenal and its ability to launch them.
Copyright (C) 2025, Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Portions copyrighted by the respective providers.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Donald Trump Scores War Powers Win: 'National Security Moves Fast'
Donald Trump Scores War Powers Win: 'National Security Moves Fast'

Newsweek

time33 minutes ago

  • Newsweek

Donald Trump Scores War Powers Win: 'National Security Moves Fast'

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. The Republican-controlled U.S. Senate on Friday rejected a Democratic effort to limit President Donald Trump's authority to launch further military action against Iran—just hours after Trump said he was weighing additional airstrikes. The chamber voted 53–47 against the war powers resolution, which would have required the president to seek congressional approval for any new hostilities against Iran. Every senator cast a vote, but the tally remained open late into the evening. In a notable split, Democrat John Fetterman broke with his party to vote "no," while Republican Rand Paul crossed the aisle to vote "yes." Why It Matters The vote came days after Trump ordered airstrikes on three major Iranian nuclear sites over the weekend, escalating tensions amid Iran's conflict with Israel. Iran retaliated by firing missiles at a U.S. military base in Qatar on Monday. Although Tehran and Tel Aviv agreed to a ceasefire on Monday, the Israel Defense Forces have since accused Iran of breaching that agreement and have threatened strikes on Tehran in response—an accusation Iran's military denies. The Senate's decision marks a clear victory for the White House and shows how much latitude both Republicans and some Democrats are willing to give Trump to take unilateral military action against Iran. President Donald Trump speaks to the media, Friday, June 27, 2025, in the briefing room of the White House in Washington. President Donald Trump speaks to the media, Friday, June 27, 2025, in the briefing room of the White House in Washington. Jacquelyn Martin/AP What To Know The measure, sponsored by Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia, would have invoked the War Powers Act—the 1973 law designed to limit a president's authority to enter armed conflicts without congressional consent. It would have required the White House to notify lawmakers and secure approval from both the House and Senate before U.S. forces could take any additional military action against Iran. Many Democrats, and even some Republicans, argued that the White House should have sought congressional approval before authorizing last weekend's strike. They point out that the Constitution gives Congress—not the president—the power to declare war, and say the War Powers Act exists to stop presidents from sidestepping that responsibility. Under the Constitution, war powers are divided but not always clearly defined. Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the power "to declare war," "raise and support armies," "provide and maintain a navy," and "make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces." This means Congress has the explicit authority to decide when the U.S. goes to war. But the last time Congress formally declared war was World War II. Since then, military actions—from Korea and Vietnam to Iraq, Libya, and Syria—have typically been carried out under broad authorizations, U.N. resolutions, or purely at the president's discretion. At the same time, Article II, Section 2 names the president as "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States." This gives the president broad authority to direct the military once it is in action. In 1973, after the Vietnam War, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution to rein in presidential war-making. It requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying troops and limits such deployments to 60 days—with a 30-day withdrawal period—unless Congress explicitly approves or declares war. Still, presidents of both parties have often argued that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional, or they've simply ignored its requirements. During his first term, Trump twice vetoed measures passed under the War Powers Act, including one aimed specifically at restricting his ability to strike Iran. Congress wrestled with similar questions in 2011, when President Barack Obama ordered airstrikes on Libya without explicit approval, drawing criticism that he had exceeded his authority. This time, the Trump administration has enjoyed strong backing from Republican leaders on Capitol Hill. House Speaker Mike Johnson has gone so far as to argue that the War Powers Act itself is unconstitutional. Meanwhile, Republican leaders have accused Democrats of using the issue for political gain and say the president needs flexibility to respond to threats quickly. "Democrats, of course, rushed to turn this successful strike into a political fight," said Senator John Barrasso, the chamber's No. 2 Republican, insisting that "national security moves fast" and that requiring consultation with Congress could "prevent the president from protecting us in the future." But some Republicans disagree. Senator Rand Paul cited the framers' original intent to keep war-making powers in the hands of Congress. "Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers that the executive is the branch most prone to war. Therefore, the Constitution, with studied care, vested that power in the legislature," Paul said, explaining his rare break with his party. For its part, the Trump administration argues the president already has all the authority he needs. In a letter to Congress this week, Trump cited his constitutional powers as commander in chief and his responsibility for foreign policy, framing the Iran strike as an act of "collective self-defense of our ally, Israel." What People Are Saying Republican Senator John Barrasso said on the Senate floor: "Democrats, of course, rushed to turn this successful strike into a political fight. National security moves fast. That's why our Constitution says: 'Give the commander in chief real authority.'" Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen said: "What would we have said if Iran or any other country had flown bombers over our country and struck our facilities? We would rightly call it what it was: an act of war." Democratic Senator Tim Kaine said: "War is too big an issue to leave to the moods and the whims and the daily vibes of any one person." What Happens Next Efforts to rein in Trump's military powers are also underway in the House, where similar measures have been introduced, but they face uncertain prospects in a Republican-led chamber unlikely to defy the White House.

Even as markets rally, Trump's policymaking causes market angst
Even as markets rally, Trump's policymaking causes market angst

Yahoo

time35 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Even as markets rally, Trump's policymaking causes market angst

By Suzanne McGee (Reuters) -As Wall Street puts April's tariff shakeout in the rearview mirror and indexes set record highs, investors remain wary of U.S. President Donald Trump's rapid-fire, sometimes chaotic policymaking process and see the rally as fragile. The S&P 500 and Nasdaq composite index advanced past their previous highs into uncharted territory on Friday. Yet traders and investors remain wary of what may lie ahead. Trump's April 2 reciprocal tariffs on major trading partners roiled global financial markets and put the S&P 500 on the threshold of a bear market designation when it ended down 19% from its February 19 record-high close. This week's leg up came after a U.S.-brokered ceasefire between Israel and Iran brought an end to a 12-day air battle that had sparked a jump in crude prices and raised worries of higher inflation. But a relief rally started after Trump responded to the initial tariff panic that gripped financial markets by backing away from his most draconian plans. JP Morgan Chase, in the midyear outlook published on Wednesday by its global research team, said the environment was characterized by "extreme policy uncertainty." "Nobody wants to end a week with a risk-on tilt to their portfolios," said Art Hogan, market strategist at B. Riley Wealth. "Everyone is aware that just as the market feels more certain and confident, a single wildcard policy announcement could change everything," even if it does not ignite a firestorm of the kind seen in April. Part of this wariness from institutional investors may be due to the magnitude of the 6% S&P 500 rally that followed Trump's re-election last November and culminated in the last new high posted by the index in February, said Joseph Quinlan, market strategist at Bank of America. "We were out ahead of our skis," Quinlan said. A focus on deregulation, tax cuts and corporate deals brought out the "animal spirits," he said. Then came the tariff battles. Quinlan remains upbeat on the outlook for U.S. stocks and optimistic that a new global trade system could lead to U.S. companies opening new markets and posting higher revenues and profits. But he said he is still cautious. "There will still be spikes of volatility around policy unknowns." Overall, measures of market volatility are now well below where they stood at the height of the tariff turmoil in April, with the CBOE VIX index now at 16.3, down from a 52.3 peak on April 8. UNSTABLE MARKETS "Our clients seem to have become somewhat desensitized to the headlines, but it's still an unhealthy market, with everyone aware that trading could happen based on the whims behind a bunch of" social media posts, said Jeff O'Connor, head of market structure, Americas, at Liquidnet, an institutional trading platform. Trading in the options market shows little sign of the kind of euphoria that characterized stock market rallies of the recent past. "On the institutional front, we do see a lot of hesitation in chasing the market rally," Stefano Pascale, head of U.S. equity derivatives research at Barclays, said. Unlike past episodes of sharp market selloffs, institutional investors have largely stayed away from employing bullish call options to chase the market higher, Pascale said, referring to plain options that confer the right to buy at a specified future price and date. Bid/ask spreads on many stocks are well above levels O'Connor witnessed in late 2024, while market depth - a measure of the size and number of potential orders - remains at the lowest levels he can recall in the last 20 years. "The best way to describe the markets in the last couple of months, even as they have recovered, is to say they are unstable," said Liz Ann Sonders, market strategist at Charles Schwab. She said she is concerned that the market may be reaching "another point of complacency" akin to that seen in March. "There's a possibility that we'll be primed for another downside move," Sonders addded. Mark Spindel, chief investment officer at Potomac River Capital in Washington, said he came up with the term "Snapchat presidency" to describe the whiplash effect on markets of the president's constantly changing policies on markets. "He feels more like a day trader than a long-term institutional investor," Spindel said, alluding to Trump's policy flip-flops. "One minute he's not going to negotiate, and the next he negotiates." To be sure, traders seem to view those rapid shifts in course as a positive in the current rally, signaling Trump's willingness to heed market signals. "For now, at least, stocks are willing to overlook the risks that go along with this style and lack of consistent policies, and give the administration a break as being 'market friendly'," said Steve Sosnick, market strategist at Interactive Brokers. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store